Subject: hello

From: Ali Boudani <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:42:13 +0100

I was wondering that SSM (before was the SImple Muticast or EXPRESS) use
a channel like (S, G) and the drafts are saying that this is the
solution to the address allocation problem because each group is
represented with the souce address also.  but why??
figure this : 2 groups (having the same address) want to recieve from
the same source. the (simple multicast or EXPRESS or SSM) will consider
them as the same group
So in this case any (S, G) = (S, G1) .... (S, Gn) and there is no sense
in the adress group of the recievers.
at the same time if G2 (the recievers in the G2 but having the G
multicast address group) for example want to recieve from S2 , in that
case all the G1.... Gn will recieve the data.

am I right ??
thanx

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:28:09 +0000

the problem it solves is the address _collision_ Problem - since all
SSM G,s are specific to their S's, you don';t have to run a
distributed algorithm or directory to do the allocation since there
are no clash type problems. i.e. the malloc architecture is
sidestepped.

 >>case all the G1.... Gn will recieve the data.

 cheers

   jon

---

From: Dirk Ooms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:36:02 +0100

Ali Boudani wrote:
> the same source. 

I have difficulty in understanding what you are writing, but I think
that the main point that you are missing is that a sender will never use
the same group address for two different streams.  The sender determines
wich G to use for a certain stream.

dirk

the (simple multicast or EXPRESS or SSM) will consider